CEPE guidance note “Labelling of Treated Articles” revision 3

November 2016

Guidance History:
Original version: May 2013
Revision 1: February 2016
Revision 2: October 2016
Revision 3: November 2016

The main reason for the first update was linked to the final position that the EU Commission
took in May 2015 on the labelling conditions for treated articles into the biocide active
substance approval Regulations.
Because our members met difficulties in complying with both the CLP and the additional
labelling provisions of the BPR, the second revision added practical examples to comply with
both labelling requirements for skin sensitizers.
This version three includes a few relevant comments on these examples that were made
following the issuance of the October 2016 version to avoid any misunderstanding on this
complex issue.

Introduction
The BPR (Biocidal Product Regulation 528/2012), published on 27 June 2012, is the
Regulation replacing the BPD (Biocidal Product Directive 98/8/EC). It applies since 1
September 2013. One of the changes introduced by the BPR is the extension of its scope to
treated articles.

The definition is the following (Art 3)1:

‘treated article’ means any substance, mixture or article which has been treated with,
or intentionally incorporates, one or more biocidal products

The BPR also includes substances and mixtures as potential ‘treated articles’. Hence, as
explained in the examples below, many CEPE Members products will fall under the BPR
definition of treated articles and new obligations derive from it.

Its Article 58 introduces new obligations for the placing on the market of “Treated Articles”.
This Industry Guidance document focuses on point 3 of the Art 58, which describes the
labelling requirements of Treated Articles under certain conditions. Two additional topics also
related to treated articles, but not related to labelling issues, are covered in the Annex.

CEPE Members are generally users of biocides as Product Type PT6 (in-can preservatives),
PT7 (dry-film preservatives) or PT 10 (masonry preservatives). Some are also involved in
PT2 (disinfectants), PT8 (wood preservatives), PT18 (pest control) and PT21 (anti fouling)
activities.

1
In REACH: Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals, Regulation 1907/2006, an article is
defined as “an object which during production is given a special shape, surface or design which determines its
function to a greater degree than does its chemical composition”.
Page 1 of 12
The first important differentiation is to be made between “biocidal product” and
“treated article”. It should be noted here that the BPR considers that a product that has
a primary biocidal function shall be considered a biocidal product (such as an anti-fouling
paint).
The second important aspect to understand is when a treated article has to be labelled, and this
can take place in two occasions: 1) once a biocidal property is claimed, and 2) if the
approval conditions of the active substance requires specific provisions for treated articles.
This document aims at clarifying the subject for CEPE Members.

Biocidal product or treated article?

The definition of a biocidal product that has been applied up to now under the BPD (1998/8)
remains on the whole valid. Basically, the claim2 is of key importance. Under the BPD as
soon as a claim was made for an external biocidal effect, the product became a biocidal
product. Under the BPR the term ‘internal effect’ or ‘external effect’ is not employed
anymore, rather the key criterion is whether a treated article has a ‘primary biocidal function’.
What ‘primary’ means is still subject to debate and is not of key importance for CEPE to
understand whether you place on the market a biocidal product or a treated article.

Examples:
1. I use a bactericide to protect my water based paint or my printing ink3 against
microbial deterioration in the wet stage (in the can). There is no external claim. The
bactericide is used solely to protect the paint. The paint is not a biocidal product, but is
a treated article.
2. I use a fungicide to protect the dry film against discoloration. The fungicide is used to
protect the film itself => the paint is protected. There is no 'external claim' or ‘primary
biocidal function’ made. The paint is not a biocidal product, but is a treated article.
3. I use an algaecide to protect my cement based plaster used to finish a facade, same
situation as in 2.
4. I use a bactericide at relevant concentration to provide an external effect (a ‘primary
biocidal function’) that I claim, such as for an anti-bacterial paint used in hospitals.
My claim is linked to a better health hygiene to prevent the development of microbes
on the surface of the walls. The claim is linked to Human Health effect. Because the
claim is for an external effect (the bactericide is used not (solely) to protect the paint
but to have an effect of a nature outside the paint), the paint IS a biocidal product and
needs to be authorized under the BPR for PT2.
5. Same as in 4, I intend to use an insecticide to incorporate into a paint with the claim (a
‘primary biocidal function’) that it will control flies. The insecticide is obviously not
present to prevent insects to damage the dry-film and the mixture falls under the need
to authorize the product under the BPR for PT18.
6. I use a fungicide in a wood coating with the claim that it will prevent rotting of the
wood. I make a claim for an outside effect (i.e. by using the fungicide in the coating I
will protect the wood underneath). The coating is a biocidal product, a real wood
preservative product (PT8) that has to be authorized, and the claim must be supported
by the relevant efficacy data (such as EN 113).
7. I use a fungicide in a wood coating with the claim that it will prevent blue stain of the
wood. The blue-stain claim is to be substantiated by an EN 152 standard test that

2
NB : be careful that a claim made in other documentation than the label, such as a Technical Data Sheet, or
promotion in any form, such as on internet, would also be regarded as a relevant claim by the controlling
Authorities
3 The BPR shall not apply to biocidal products or treated articles that are within the scope of a number of
instruments, including cosmetics (1223/2009) and toy safety (2009/48)
Page 2 of 12
 requires a minimum penetration in the wood. Success in passing the test will
put me in a biocidal product category (wood preservation PT8). A failure to
pass the test would indicate that I cannot make such wood preservation claim, in
which case my claim could be limited to film protection and the coating becomes a
treated article.

Now that everyone understands the difference between biocidal product and treated article,
we will in the next pages address the issue of the labelling of treated articles.

Page 3 of 12
Labelling of treated articles
Once you know that you are placing on the market a treated article (because you have
used a biocide – your product was treated with or intentionally incorporates a biocidal
product), the next question is: when do you have to label it?

The Article 58 (3) states:

3. The person responsible for the placing on the market of such a treated article shall
ensure that the label provides the information listed in the second subparagraph,
where:
- in the case of a treated article containing a biocidal product, a claim is made by the
manufacturer of that treated article regarding the biocidal properties of the article, or
- in relation to the active substance(s) concerned, having particular regard to the
possibility of contact with humans or the release into the environment, the conditions
associated with the approval of the active substance(s) so require.

There are therefore two situations that require labelling:

Situation 1: you make a claim regarding a biocidal property. Again you have to carefully
understand the consequence of making a claim. The term 'property' must be differentiated
from the term 'function'. A product that has a primary biocidal function must be regarded as a
biocidal product, but a treated article may still contain biocidal products that deliver a certain
property to the article. A ‘property’ is a characterizing quality. However, a ‘function’ refers
more specifically to the intended purpose of a product.
Example 1: the incorporation of a dry-film preservative biocidal product in a coating does not
make the coating a biocidal product (see above, no external claim) but provides the coating
with the property that it is protected against certain discoloration/disfigurement. If you make a
claim of the type 'this paint is protected against disfigurement caused by fungi and algae', then
you will fall under situation 1 and you will have to label (see below for the label
requirements).
Example 2: you use an in-can preservative to protect your water based paint. Of course you do
not claim that it is protected for microbial deterioration, it is obvious since without doing so
the first customer would run away from your product once opening the can... In this case you
would not need labelling according to situation 1, but you may need it according to situation
2.

Situation 2: in May 2013 we were writing: ‘this is not within the control of CEPE Members,
but depends on the outcome of the BPD/BPR assessment of the relevant active(s) and cannot
be predicted today'4. This condition means that if the outcome of the risk assessment for the
use of the relevant active(s) in coatings would have demonstrated some remaining concerns
(for Human Health and/or for the Environment), then the end-use product (your coating) will
have to warn the user of certain dangers/risks/risk mitigation measures and comply with the
labelling elements of Art 58(3) outlined below.

The situation has now evolved as the EU Commission with the support of Member States

4 Of course the question is always: 'When do we expect the revision of existing actives to be finalised?'
Initially it was May 2010, then it became May 2014 and today the EU Commission got another postponement
up to 2025.
Page 4 of 12
finally agreed in November 2015 that labelling provisions will apply for all skin
sensitizing substances classified as category 1 or 1a (which means most of them as
few are only 1b) 5.
They have now started to include a standard provision in the approval regulation of these
substances (see the example of CMIT/MIT PT6 No 131/2016):

The person responsible for the placing on the market of a treated article treated with or
incorporating C(M)IT/MIT (3:1) shall ensure that the label of that treated article provides
the information listed in the second subparagraph of Article 58(3) of Regulation (EU) No
528/2012.

It must be pointed out that there are other hazard based classification criteria that will also
trigger the labelling requirements: vP or vB, P and B, respiratory sensitizers, other substances
identified as SVHC under REACH (could be due to endocrine disruptive effects or specific
organ target toxicity etc.), and also if a use is restricted or if the active fulfils the exclusion
criteria. It is expected in practice that skin sensitizers will be the substances that will mostly
trigger such new labelling requirements.

It must also be highlighted that when COM started to add labelling requirements to substance
approvals back in 2013 they only targeted skin sensitizers (and not PBT etc.) and made
specific reference to it in the legal texts. Hence the paragraph that was added in the approval
regulations of a few substances contained specific reference to skin sensitization as per the
example of IPBC for PT6 (Regulation 1037/2013):

‘Where a treated article has been treated with or intentionally incorporates IPBC, and
where necessary due to the possibility of skin contact as well as the release of IPBC under
normal conditions of use, the person responsible for placing the treated article on the
market shall ensure that the label provides information on the risk of skin sensitisation, as
well as the information referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 58(3) of
Regulation (EU) No 528/2012’

As a consequence the labelling requirements for some substances may slightly differ due to
the specific need to add reference to skin sensitization.
In the case of IPBC it must be highlighted that when it was approved for PT8 in 2008 no
labelling provision existed, and when it was approved for PT13 in 2015 the labelling
requirement did not anymore contain indication on the risk of skin sensitization. This is
somewhat confusing and it shows the change of thinking of the Authorities throughout the
years.

Important note: this condition for skin sensitization does not involve any threshold
concentration. Hence, as soon as you intentionally add a biocide that meets one of these
criteria in your product, the new labelling provisions apply. This also means that the biocide
that your raw material supplier added to preserve his own product does not fall in scope (at a
relevant concentration to preserve that product and not at higher concentration that would
preserve your own product).

5
For further details see the EU COM document CA-May-15-DOC.6.1-final ‘Labelling of treated articles’
Page 5 of 12
Labelling requirements
Art 58(3) states the following:

The label referred to in the first subparagraph shall provide the following information:
(a) a statement that the treated article incorporates biocidal products;
(b) where substantiated, the biocidal property attributed to the treated article;
(c) without prejudice to Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, the name of all
active substances contained in the biocidal products;
(d) the name of all nanomaterials contained in the biocidal products, followed by the
word ‘nano’ in brackets;
(e) any relevant instructions for use, including any precautions to be taken because of
the biocidal products with which a treated article was treated or which it
incorporates.

Some explanations:

(a) Such statement could be as simple as ‘This paint contains a biocidal product’.
(b) This could be included in the previous phrase and read ‘This paint contains a biocidal
product for the preservation of the dry film’. The location of the claim is not specified
in the BPR; therefore it does not need to be placed next to the other labelling
requirements. This is also true for the other labelling requirements that can be placed
in different locations. Hence it does allow some flexibility. For instance, when paints
are sold in pre-printed cans we would not want to have to change the labelling
requirements when another biocidal product is used. Example: you switch the dry-film
preservative from a product containing a certain fungicide active to another one. This
requires changing the naming of the active. If this is placed on pre-printed cans the
stock would have to be destroyed or a sticker placed on the label. In that situation the
naming of the actives should be placed on another document accompanying the sale of
the paint. On the other hand a typical precaution could be ‘do not apply above surface
waters like ponds or rivers’, and this would be applicable to both fungicides actives so
it could be placed on the can.
(c) This requires the naming of the actives used. The question is what chemical name
should be used? In order to save label space CEPE advise to use the shortest
abbreviation possible, but still legally justifiable. See below under ‘General principle
for naming substances in products’ for further explanation.
(d) This does limit the requirement to state nano forms of biocide actives linked to the
biocidal property claim such as ‘contains (nano) silver’
(e) Typically this should come from the outcome of the evaluation of the biocide products,
when they will be authorized under the BPR and when such requirement would
specifically apply. Example: ‘Do not apply near or above surface waters like rivers or
ponds’

Page 6 of 12
Hence, Art 58(3) of the BPR contains 5 requirements under (a) to (e) but not all are
relevant for us.
• For in-can preservation PT6 it is expected that the sole relevant requirement is in (a)
and (c): a statement that the TA contains a biocide (or more than one).
• For dry-film preservation PT7 the property must be added in addition (according to
(b)).
Specific instructions for the point (e) might also come in the future (particularly for PT7),
depending on the approval conditions of biocidal products (mixtures).

Practical recommendations to implement the BPR labelling requirements in addition to

the CLP requirements.
When we issued the revised guidance (version 1) in February 2016, members expressed
difficulties to identify the relevant names of biocide substances to use and to combine the CLP
and the BPR sentences when skin sensitization is involved. This section provides guidance to
members on those aspects.
Warning: the information provided below has been developed to facilitate the implementation
of the labelling requirements as much as possible. However, members may have to adopt this
based on own considerations (IT system, customer expectations…).

1. General principles for naming substances in products

ECHA labelling and packaging guidance recommends following the hierarchy in CLP
Article 18(2) for naming of substances in mixtures (Annex VI name; C&L inventory
name; other internationally recognised name e.g. INCI nomenclature), but states that it is
preferable to use the name that is most well-known to the user/consumer, which is likely
to be a shorter name. Also, if a substance has to be named on the label under both CLP
and other legislation, the same name should be used for both.

The labelling requirements of BPR Article 58(3) require BPR names to be used. These
are published in the approval regulations for the active substances.

CEPE recommends using the abbreviation for a biocide if given as the name in the official
approval regulation. Otherwise use the shortest name available, typically the INCI name.

Examples:
• C(M)IT/MIT (3:1) is used in Regulation 2016/131
(CLP Annex VI name: reaction mass of: 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one [EC
no. 247-500-7] and 2-methyl-2H -isothiazol-3-one [EC no. 220-239-6] (3:1))

• IPBC is used in Regulation 1037/2013

(CLP Annex VI name: 3-iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate).

• Methylisothiazolinone in INCI/EU Cosmetics Glossary

(C&L inventory: 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one; PT13 approval regulation: 2-
methylisothiazol-3(2H)-one).

Page 7 of 12
2. General principles for combining CLP and BPR labelling
CEPE recommends avoiding duplication and reducing the information on labels to
a minimum as far as possible. Some principles for this:

• If a product contains several substances requiring EUH208, include all names in the
same statement.
• If a product contains several biocides to be named according to BPR Art. 58(3) (point
(c)), include all names in the same sentence.
• If a biocide requires both of the above, avoid duplication by using the first part of
EUH208 to cover the naming of the active substance(s).
• If the approval regulation requires identification of a specific risk, such as skin
sensitisation, include short text for this at the end of the phrases if not already covered
by EUH208 or other (supplemental) hazard statements.

NB: if a biocidal active substance is not yet approved, use CLP labelling elements only (e.g.
EUH208).

3. Examples for single active substance under the following situations:

Note: the examples below contain substances that have not yet been approved for the relevant
PT, hence the BPR labelling requirements do not yet apply to them (such as for MIT and BIT
for PT6) but have been used to clarify the various possibilities. Although we do not expect
that the standard paragraph added for skin sensitizing substances in their approval regulations
will change, it will be important to check this upon their publication.

a) Concentration leading to classification of the mixture: apply H317

DCOIT in wood paint >250 ppm (250 ppm today according to supplier. In future may
be lowered (since Norway proposed 10 ppm)).
The product is classified as skin sensitizer and the hazard statement “May cause an
allergic reaction” must appear on the label. The name of the substance must also be
given due to BPR Article 58(3) and CLP Article 18(3): “Contains 4,5-dichloro-2-
octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one.”

b) Concentration leading to EUH 208 and substance/PT not yet approved: apply EUH
208 only
MIT used in paint as PT6. 100 ppm today for EUH 208 according to supplier. RAC
Committee decided on 15 ppm for induction (= 1.5 ppm for EUH 208). To be
officially published with ATP in future. Decision to classify already at 15 ppm to be
made.
>100 ppm: “Contains methylisothiazolinone. May produce an allergic reaction.”

c) Concentration leading to EUH 208 and substance/PT approved: apply EUH 208 and
Art 58(3)
Example 1: IPBC used in paint as PT6. >1000 ppm and <10000 ppm:
“Contains a biocidal product: Contains IPBC. May produce an allergic
reaction.”

Example 2: CMIT/MIT used in paint as PT6. >1.5 ppm and <15 ppm:
“Contains a biocidal product: Contains C(M)IT/MIT (3:1). May produce an
allergic reaction.”
Page 8 of 12
 d) Concentration below EUH 208 and substance/PT not approved: no labelling
info needed
-

e) Concentration below EUH 208 and substance/PT approved: apply Art 58(3)
<1.5 ppm: “Contains a biocidal product: C(M)IT/MIT (3:1)”
<50 ppm: “Contains a biocidal product: BIT”
<1000 ppm: “Contains a biocidal product: IPBC. Risk of skin sensitization”

4. Examples for multiple active substances under the following situations:

Note: the examples below contain substances that have not yet been approved for the relevant
PT, hence the BPR labelling requirements do not yet apply to them (such as MIT and BIT for
PT6 or IPBC for PT7). Although we do not expect that the standard paragraph added for skin
sensitizing substances in their approval regulations will change, it will be important to check
this upon their publication.

a) A substance triggers H317, another one EUH 208, and a third one is <EUH 208

DCOIT >250 ppm + BIT between 50-500 ppm + CMIT/MIT <1.5 ppm:

DCOIT drives H317 classification + BPR Art 58(3) (a) + (b)

BIT adds the substance name (CLP Annex II 2.8) + BPR Art 58 (a)
CMIT/MIT requires BPR Art 58(3) (a) + (c)

b) A PT6 substance requires EUH 208 and a PT7 substance claims a biocidal property
under EUH 208

CMIT/MIT at 10 ppm for PT6 + IPBC at 900 ppm for PT7 (with claim):

CMIT/MIT needs EUH 208 + BPR Art 58(a)

IPBC needs BPR Art 58(a) + (b) + (c)

“Contains a biocidal product: Contains C(M)IT/MIT (3:1). May produce an

allergic reaction. Contains a biocidal product for the preservation of dry-
film: IPBC”6

c) Two PT6 substances require EUH 208 and a PT7 substance claims a biocidal property
below the level for EUH 208

CMIT/MIT at 10 ppm for PT6 + BIT at 400 ppm + IPBC at 900 ppm for PT7 (with
claim):

CMIT/MIT and BIT need EUH 208 + BPR Art 58(a)

6
NB: for IPBC reference to skin sensitization is normally not going to be made in its future PT7 approval, it was
done only for PT6.

Page 9 of 12
 IPBC needs BPR Art 58(a) + (b) + (c)

“Contains a biocidal product: Contains C(M)IT/MIT (3:1) and BIT. May

produce an allergic reaction. Contains a biocidal product for the preservation
of dry-film: IPBC (see also footnote 6)”

d) A PT6 substance requires EUH 208 + another PT6 substance is under EUH 208 + a
PT7 (with claim) substance also under EUH 208

CMIT/MIT at 10 ppm for PT6 + IPBC at 900 ppm for PT7 (with claim) + BIT at 40
ppm for PT6 (when it is approved in an official Regulation under the BPR):

CMIT/MIT needs EUH 208 + BPR Art 58(a)

IPBC needs BPR Art 58(a) + (b) + (c)
BIT requires BPR Art (58) (a) + (c)

“Contains a biocidal product: Contains C(M)IT/MIT (3:1). May produce an

allergic reaction. Contains a biocidal product: BIT Contains a biocidal
product for the preservation of dry-film: IPBC.”

Deadline for complying with the labelling requirements of Article 58 (3)

For condition 1: the legislator had not foreseen the need to have a transitional period, so the
requirements applied from 1 September 2013. This is valid for treated articles that are placed
on the market from that deadline.

For condition 2: the date of approval of the active substance for the relevant PT (this is
typically 18 months after the date of publication of the approval regulation).

Page 10 of 12
 Annex

Other obligations for treated articles:

Art 58(2): Treated articles shall only use approved biocide actives for the supported Product
Types (from which derive the uses).
The status of approval of active substances can be consulted on the ECHA website here:
http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/biocidal-active-substances

Art 95 on approved suppliers.

By 1 September 2013 only approved biocide suppliers were able to place on the market
biocide actives. Two years later, from 1 September 2015, biocidal products can only be placed
on the market if they contain a biocide active from the approved supplier list. Disposal and
use of existing stocks of biocidal products containing actives coming from non approved
suppliers can then continue until 1 September 2016.
Hence, the manufacture of treated articles in Europe can only be made using biocidal products
containing actives coming from approved suppliers, by 1 September 2016 latest.
The list of approved suppliers can be found here:
http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/active-substance-suppliers

Article 58.5

Art. 58.5 : Notwithstanding the labelling requirements set out in paragraph 3, the
supplier of a treated article shall, where a consumer so requests, provide that
consumer, within 45 days, free of charge, with information on the biocidal treatment of
the treated article

In the absence of more accurate information on what precisely has to be communicated, it is

recommended to obtain a legal opinion.

Deadlines for the placing on the market of treated articles (Art 94)

This section concerns the deadline for placing on the market treated articles when an active
substance/Product Type/use combination is not supported anymore or when a negative
approval decision has been made.

Due to the transitional measure linked to the implementation of this new BPR provision of
treated articles, the important deadline is situated around 1 September 2016. In the future, it is
important to note that treated articles must no longer be placed on the market 180 days after a
non approval decision for an active substance contained in the biocidal product used to treat
or intentionally incorporated in those treated articles. This is going to be the key date to
follow for each relevant active/PT. Again we encourage CEPE members to be vigilant in the
future.

The situation can be summarized as follows:

Page 11 of 12
NB: “supported active” means an active that is supported by Industry (biocide
supplier(s)) and is being reviewed under the BPD/BPR. “Not approved“ means that
Authorities refused granting authorisation or that Industry stopped supporting the dossier.

Examples:
1. I am currently placing on the market a paint that was made outside Europe and that
contains an in-can preservative that is not supported under the BPD since 2006. The
deadline for continuing such import (without prejudice to other legislations that may
apply, such as REACH) is 1 September 2016 + 180 days.
2. 1 May 2016, a non-approval decision for the active that I am using in my paint is
made: I have 6 months to cease the placing on the market7, i.e. 1 November 2016.

7 Placing on the market: the first making available on the market.

Making available on the market: any supply for distribution or use in the course of a commercial activity,
whether in return of payment or free of charge.
Page 12 of 12